DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 18/861904 filed 10/31/2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/31/24 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description in paragraph [0054]: 69, two normally open hydraulic valves and 70, two normally closed hydraulic valves.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the piston provided with a one-way lip seal exiting the device as recited in claim 30 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because legal phraseology used in patent claims “comprising” in line 1; “said” in lines 4, 9, 11 and 12; “means” in lines 10 and 12 should be deleted. Further the term “a” should as disclosed in “a first braking device” and “a second braking device” should be deleted to grammatically correct description in abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-The reference characters “92 and 96” are listed as “braking simulators” in paragraph [0046] and “absorbers” in paragraph [0054]. Please clarify and amend accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 18, last two lines recite the limitation “…….and simultaneously operate the at least a first braking device and/or the at least a second braking device”. The term “a” should be deleted to grammatically correct scope of limitation.
-Claim 19, lines 6-7 recite the limitation “…….and simultaneously operate the at least a first braking device and/or the at least a second braking device”. The term “a” should be deleted to grammatically correct scope of limitation.
-Claim 19, last two lines recite the limitation “….when at least one between the first and the second manually operated hydraulic device is operated.” The term “of” should be inserted between the terms “one” and “between” to grammatically correct scope of limitation.
-Claim 23 recite the limitations “in the standard condition” and “in back-up mode”. The terms “condition” and “mode” should be changed to “operation” as recited in claims 18 and 19 to maintain scope consistency between claims.
-Claim 23 list the reference character “(76)” referring to the recited “slide valve” in lines 8 and 10. This reference character should be changed to “(108)” as listed in line 2 of claim and listed in the specification in paragraph [0043].
-Claim 24 list the reference character “(76)” referring to the recited “slide valve” in line 6. This reference character should be changed to “(108)” as listed in line 2 of claim 23 and listed in the specification in paragraph [0043].
-Claim 25 list the reference character “(76)” referring to the recited “slide valve” in line 6. This reference character should be changed to “(108)” as listed in line 2 of claim 23 and listed in the specification in paragraph [0043].
-Claim 26 list the reference character “(76)” referring to the recited “slide valve” in line 2. This reference character should be changed to “(108)” as listed in line 2 of claim 23 and listed in the specification in paragraph [0043].
-Claim 32 list the reference character “(69)” referring to the recited “two normally open hydraulic valves” in line 2. This reference character should be changed to “(116)” as listed in claim 26 and listed in the specification in paragraph [0047].
-Claim 32 list the reference character “(70)” referring to the recited “two normally closed hydraulic valves” in line 4. This reference character should be changed to “(116)” as listed in claim 26 and listed in the specification in paragraph [0047].
-Claim 32 list the reference character “(92, 96)” referring to the recited “absorbers” in next to last line. These reference characters are also listed as “braking simulators” in claim 21, please amend accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-“ an electric actuator having electric or electromechanical motor means operatively connected to an electrically or electromechanically operated float fluidly connected to a delivery of the electric actuator connected to said first hydraulic supply circuit and/or to said second hydraulic supply circuit” in claim 18.
-“wherein said valve means comprise a diverter valve…..” in claim 20.
-“wherein said valve means comprise a slide valve……” in claims 23-25.
-“……wherein the system comprises a brake fluid tank connected directly upstream of the electric actuator by means of a plurality of series of one-way valves…..” in claim 31.
-“wherein said valve means comprise two normally open valves…..” in claim 32.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-“ wherein said first and second hydraulic delivery circuits are fluidly connected to each other by (function) the interposition of valve means” in claim 18.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-“ the processing and control unit (generic placeholder) being programmed so that: - in standard operation,………..it translates the electrically or electromechanically operated float…… (function)” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21, 22 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claim 21 recites the limitations "the first inlet port" and “the second inlet port” in lines 5 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim due to these limitations being recited (introduced) in claim 20 and not claim 18.
-Claim 22 recites the limitation “a preloaded membrane which ensures an overpressure to compensate a different geodetic quota”. The specification in paragraph [0012] describe “a preloaded membrane which ensures an overpressure to compensate for a different geodetic height…….”. It would seem that applicant is attempting to cover scope outside of what is described in specification being that the term “quota” could in fact “broadly” cover more than “height”, please clarify and amend accordingly.
-Claim 31 recites the limitation "………which allow the leakage of fluid with the system at atmospheric pressure and at the same time prevent the passage in the opposite direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Currently claims 19-35 depend from cancelled claim 17 and not from current independent claim 18. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-35 are allowed (pending response to 112(b) and 112(d)).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record doesn’t disclose or render obvious a motivation to provide for:
-a braking system for a motorcycle having a first and second braking devices wherein the first device is connected to a first wheel which is provided with a first hydraulic supply circuit and the second device is connected with first or a second wheel which is provided with a second hydraulic supply circuit; a first and second manual control device and first and second delivery circuit; an electric or electromechanical motor actuator connected to an electric or electromechanical operated float fluidly connected to a actuator delivery connected to the first and/or second delivery circuits which are connected by interposition of a valve means and in the event of the first and/or second manual devices operating, a processing and control unit translates the float to disconnect the first and/or second supply circuits from the first and/or second delivery circuit while simultaneously operating at least the first and/or second braking device and in combination with the limitations exactly as written in claim 18.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Leiber 20220041150 (Figure 3d); Tani et al 20050168063 (Figure 1); Burkhard et al 20080238188 (Figure 1); and Di Stefano et al 20210380087 (Figure 1) all disclose motorcycle braking systems that use electric or electromechanical actuators for controlling braking fluid within systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights